17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in real-world: a literature review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Knowing vaccine effectiveness (VE) against variants of concern (VOCs) in the real-world setting is essential for public health decision-making. A systematic landscape of the VE against a series of clinical outcomes caused by the VOCs in the real-world setting is needed. We systematically searched for studies that evaluated VE against VOCs in the real-world setting and collected individual data. We identified 113 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. We found full vaccination provided strong protection against each clinical outcome with summary VE ranging from 86.8% to 96.0% Alpha, moderate protection against infection caused by Beta, Gamma and Delta with summary VE ranging from 70.9% to 72.8%, strong protection against severe disease caused by Delta with summary VE ranging from 84.9% to 90.3%, limited protection with summary VE of 23.5% (95% CI, 17.0–29.5) against infection and moderate protection with summary VE ranging from 56.5% to 82.4% against severe diseases caused by Omicron. Booster vaccination can provide a substantial improvement in protection against Delta and Omicron, but not as much as the Delta. The meta-regression analysis showed that the VE against the Omicron wanned over time, and the VE against hospitalization declined relatively slowly, compared to against infection. Those findings supported the need for public health measures, increasing booster vaccination coverage in response to current and new infectious waves driven by variants and developing broadly protective vaccines to confront virus evolution.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant

              Abstract Background Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. Methods We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. Results Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], −49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (92.9%) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, −76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Emerg Microbes Infect
                Emerg Microbes Infect
                Emerging Microbes & Infections
                Taylor & Francis
                2222-1751
                29 September 2022
                2022
                29 September 2022
                : 11
                : 1
                : 2383-2392
                Affiliations
                Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Zhengzhou University , Zhengzhou, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                [CONTACT ] Weidong Zhang imooni@ 123456zzu.edu.cn Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Zhengzhou University , Zhengzhou, Henan, 450001, People’s Republic of China

                Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2022.2122582.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0362-6474
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0314-7820
                Article
                2122582
                10.1080/22221751.2022.2122582
                9542696
                36069511
                6dac9015-c731-41ef-b7ad-f29d58eb7c7d
                © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group, on behalf of Shanghai Shangyixun Cultural Communication Co., Ltd

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 42, Pages: 10
                Categories
                Coronaviruses
                Review

                covid-19 vaccine effectiveness,variants of concern,real-world study,meta-analysis,sars-cov-2

                Comments

                Comment on this article